The Creation Debate(Vanity)

Me

[conservative_crusader]

As in all vanities of this style, I would suggest any people who get overly angry and upset over religious vs. secular debate immediately stop reading.

First, before going any farther, I need to make known my position:

1.) I am persuaded that the universe was created by some higher power.

2.) I am a Christian in practice.

3.) My intention in this vanity, is to discuss the possibility of god(s) existing.

4.) If you have any other question as to what my motive is, please feel free to post, or send me a private message.

Let us begin the actual discussion with an argument as to whether god(s) exist. Here is the given:

1.) The Universe either A.)came into being at some point in time, B.)has always existed just as it is, or C.)does not exist at all. (If there are any other possibilities here, please tell me what you've come up with).

2.) Time is Linear.(as in, can be plotted on a line approaching infinity in both directions).

3.) For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

4.) Matter/Energy, cannot be created or destroyed.

5.) Occasionally all elements decay into some stable element(like lead,) which is incapable of sustaining life.

6.) All other laws of physics apply.

So, from #1, let us assume scenario B. The Universe has always existed in much the same way forever as it is today. Let us apply given #5 and #4 to this scenario. So, by #5, all the matter in the universe is presently lead, as it has had an infinite amount of time in which to decay into lead, and by #4, no new matter can be introduced into the universe so everything is lead. However; we know that the entire universe is not lead, so scenario B cannot be true.

Now, let us consider scenario C. If scenario C is true, then this is merely an attempt by your imagination to convince you that the unverse is real, which it isn't, and so this entire thread is pointless. If it is pointless, there is no point in discussing this further. So let us not accept scenario C for the moment.

Now, assume scenario A. The universe came into being at some point. If the universe came into being at some point, there must have been some cause in order to trigger what is often called the"The Big Bang." So, since no matter could have exsisted before the universe was created, there must be some other cause by which the universe was created. My contention, is that force is God, or a god.

Now that I've finished my proof, let me go over some of the responses I've gotten to similair posts.

Generic Response #1: Evolution contradicts that god(s) exist.

My answer #1: Evolution does not contradict that there is a god. Evolution only explains a means by which god *may* have created life on Earth.

Generic Response #2: Abiogenesis

My answer #2: All of the articles on Abiogenesis that I have read, never really contradict that a god did not have a hand in creation. If you can find one, I would welcome a response.

Generic Response #3: Your first given is flawed. There are more possibilities explaining the universe than those.

My answer #3: There are no other possibilities that I am aware of. If you can think of any other possibilities please post them.

Generic Response #4: Time is not linear, the second given is false.

My answer #4: Just because time is not linear in actuality, does not mean that it cannot be plotted as a line on a graph. Time can be represented as a line, that is all that is important for this argument.

Generic Response #5: The third given is flawed. Recent research indicates that there does not neccesarily have to be a cause when the universe began.

My answer #5: Source please.

Generic Response #6: Recent science indicates two things. A.) The universe is expanding and B.) As the universe expands, matter is introduced into the system.

My response #6: If the universe has been expanding forever, then matter has been being introduced into the universe for an infinite amount of time. Therefore, the entire universe is filled with matter. However; the entire universe is not filled with matter, which indicates that something in these recent discoveries is false.

Generic Response #7: The fifth given is false. Not everything decays into lead.

My response #7: read your physics book.

Generic Response #8: The last given is false. You cannot assume that just because the laws of physics behave in one way in this region of the universe, that they would behave in the same way in other parts of the universe.

My Response #8: If evidence actually surfaces supporting this I will grant you this point, but you must post a source. Also, not all of the laws of physics have to behave in the same way everywhere, only the ones that are given in the my list of given laws have to behave appropriately for my argument to stand.

Generic Response #9: You can't prove anything.

My answer #9: Yes you can, and your argument is semantic.

Generic Response #10: You can assume everything, and I assume there is no god.

My answer #10: Then I assume that opposite poles of magnets will not attract each other. That doesn't make it so.

[conservative_crusader]

Please note: I have some prior engagements to tend to, so I will probably not be able to respond to any posts until later this evening or tomorrow afternoon.

[Safrguns]

I too am a Christian, who believes that EVERYTHING was created by God. However, I do not believe this is something you can prove through the use of physics or any scientific method which relies solely upon that which can be understood or explained by man. Why? because the physical realm was created from a higher plain of existence which is beyond our scope of observation... God is Spirit, and brought the physical into existence from the spiritual realm at the utterance of His Word. And, as God so frequently demonstrates in His word through miracles, the spiritual realm operates above the laws of physics and consistently defies man's understanding of the universe.

[BipolarBob]

Likewise I am a Christian and all the evidence I need is the Bible. This marvelous Book describes everything a person has to know about our short time here on earth. It tells where we came from and where we are headed.

[Buddy B]

"2.) I am a Christian in practice."

Explain !!!

[Minuteman23]

Comments solicited, when you're able to.

[curiosity]

Where do you get the idea that all elements decay into lead?

[conservative_crusader]

I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. I believe that He was the son of God. I also believe that he was without sin. Also, he was crucified on a cross, and because he did not earn, or deserve death, he was capable of saving the world from its sin. I know that I am a sinner, and I have dedicated my life to being a witness for him. Finally, I try to the best of my ability to repent from the sins that I am guilty of.

Does that work for you?

[conservative_crusader]

Because, all radioactive elements have displayed a tendency to decay into lead. We also know, that all elements are slightly radioactive, although the amount of radioactivity is very slight compared to deadly amounts. So, we can conclude that all elements will eventually decay into lead.

[curiosity]

Because, all radioactive elements have displayed a tendency to decay into lead. We also know, that all elements are slightly radioactive, although the amount of radioactivity is very slight compared to deadly amounts. So, we can conclude that all elements will eventually decay into lead.

This is the first I've ever heard this. I took nuclear chemistry a long time ago, and I don't remember this being discussed. Maybe someone with some expertise on the topic can clarify it.

[curiosity]

Come to think of it, what you propose is wrong. When a radioactive element decays, it decays into something lighter. Therefore, even if elements lighter than lead are decaying, they cannot possibly decay into lead.

Ergo, even if the universe were infinitely old, it would not be 100% lead.

[Tulsa]

You lay it out right but scientists will quibble with the language..science does reject life being meaningless or time being infinite in the past, and accepts an origin.

but it thinks a first cause is beyond its study when it studies causes all the time..you've expressed the basic proof of first cause, what remains is to make that Cause personal.

#3: more possibilities?? right answer, that they are meaningless until stated and explained (& then they resolve to what's been said already)

#5: there does not neccesarily have to be a cause when the universe began. this is close to what stephen hawking says in any book.

the response is (see my homepage) either the origin is ordered or not. order arising from disorder is ridiculous on many counts. so the latent order of the universe is the first cause. (hint: latent order = immanence)

your response #6 not stated best but it echoes the correct response..similarly #7 maybe not lead but you said 'something like lead'

finally the philosophy arguments are where scientists retreat when their idolatry don't work

[conservative_crusader]

Good catch sir. I will grant that the universe would not be 100% lead, however, it does not have to be 100% lead in order for the universe to be incapable of supporting life. Because the universe does support life, we know that the universe must have come into being at some point in time.

[conservative_crusader]

I agree with a lot of what you say. I will go over your homepage, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

In regard to point #5, I would contend that Newton's third law *should* apply. I place emphasis on the word should. So science clearly stands behind the side of creation by a higher being in this instance. If there were some point where the laws of physics did not behave in a way similar than the way they behave today, that does not necessarily contradict the proposition of god(s). On the contrary, it indicates the possibility of some being that is capable of superseding the laws of the universe.

[curiosity]

Well, lets look at this for a momnet. Does life depend on the existence of elements heavier than lead? I don't think so. Most of life is made of carbon. Nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, potassium, and magnisium are other common elements in organisms. I'm no organic chemist, but I can't think of a single element heavier than lead that's makes up a part of any living organism. In fact, most elements heavier than lead, i.e. heavy metals, are highly toxic.

In fact, I'll take it a step further: elements heavier than lead tend to be rather rare in nature, and where they do exist there are plenty of natural explanations for how they were formed. There are lots of nuclear reactions going on in the universe.

I believe in God, but I've come to the conclusion that it's probably not possible to prove his existence scientifically. Of course, I could be wrong, so I'm happy to consider any "proofs" you might have to offer. This proof seems pretty lacking, though.

[conservative_crusader]

"Well, lets look at this for a momnet. Does life depend on the existence of elements heavier than lead? "

No, lead and elements heavier than it are incapable of supporting life.

"I don't think so. Most of life is made of carbon. Nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, potassium, and magnisium are other common elements in organisms."

Your point being? You still haven't contradicted that these won't decay into elements resembling lead.

" I'm no organic chemist, but I can't think of a single element heavier than lead that's makes up a part of any living organism. "

Still no contradiction.

"In fact, I'll take it a step further: elements heavier than lead tend to be rather rare in nature, and where they do exist there are plenty of natural explanations for how they were formed."

It doesn't matter if the elements are heavier, the word "decay" is being misused. Other elements will eventually convert into elements not capable of supporting life given an infinite amount of time.

"I believe in God, but I've come to the conclusion that it's probably not possible to prove his existence scientifically. Of course, I could be wrong, so I'm happy to consider any "proofs" you might have to offer. This proof seems pretty lacking, though."

Well, I'm glad to know this. As of this moment however, I am winning the argument.

[bondserv]

The God of Eternity became a man (Emmanuel - God with us) so that we wouldn't need this discussion! Science or the science of judiciary evidence, has been repeated tried and tested. All other discussion is semantic.

There was an event that changed all of history. The death and resurrection of God, as evidenced by over 500 people. And that is setting aside the incredible types and number of supernatural miracles He performed while He walked around in Israel.

On top of that, Jesus Christ fulfilled over three hundred prophecies contained in the Jewish Scriptures. Their entire sacrificial system was a lead in to the work the Messiah accomplished on the cross.

Jesus Christ, who we can know personally, and that many recorded witnesses knew physically, created the universe and confirmed the process as recorded in Genesis.

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

[curiosity]

Okay, maybe I don't remember my nuclear chemistry very well, but from what I remember, elements lighter than lead mostly exist in isotopes that are stable and not radioactive, and hence are not decaying into anything. Therefore you'd expect a lot of these elements to be lying around if the universe were infinitely lived.

Yes, there exist some radioactive isotopes of lighter elements, such as Carbon 14, but they don't decay into lead. Cabon 14 decays into nitrogen, which in turn is stable and doesn't decay into anything. Cosmic radiation can turn Nitrogen into Carbon 14, but Nitrogen itself does not spontaneously decay into anything. Therefore, we'd expect to see lots of nitrogen and carbon lying around even if the universe were infinitely lived.

So unless my memory of nuclear chemistry is way off, which is possible, I admit, your argument does not hold water.

If I got the science wrong, please feel free to correct me.

[Safrguns]

Couldn't have said it any better myself.
Of course, one has to demonstrate the accuracy of scripture to one who is willing to accept the possibility that it's authentic. Even when Jesus performed miracles, and rose from the dead, people still did not believe.

[bondserv]

Couldn't have said it any better myself. Of course, one has to demonstrate the accuracy of scripture to one who is willing to accept the possibility that it's authentic. Even when Jesus performed miracles, and rose from the dead, people still did not believe.

Very true, and that is why this thread is important. I just thought I would throw the God/ Man into the mix. :-)

[Safrguns]

From your homepage:
Science is limited in it's truth seeking apparatus, for it chooses to disregard the Supernatural. Because it cannot test supernatural events, it is forced to disregard it's influence on reality.

I like the way you stated this... However, I think the second sentence is slightly flawed. I believe that true reality actually resides in the supernatural... therefore it is not simply a matter of the supernatural (spiritual realm) influencing reality, but rather the physical realm (man's scope of reality) influencing the supernatural.